Indiana Jones and the Last Lost Crystal Thread of Doom

Ravenstone wrote:

Let's face it - it needed Nazis.

I wouldn't mind someone else playing Indy. I thought Dennis Quaid would make a good Indy. Or even David Duchovny. I don't think Indiana Jones is some sacred cow who must only be played by Harrison Ford.

Let me put it this way: CAPTAIN AMERICA was a better Indiana Jones film than 'Crystal Skull'.

As for recasts...I don't have anyone in mind off hand, but seeing as how they've had Sean Patrick Flannery, River Phoenix, and that little kid play Indy at different times of his young life, I'd suggest that the role is, as you put it, not a sacred cow. What about a series of adventures featuring a young Henry Jones?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Then quite clearly your opinion of the film must be worse than mine.

Don't think so. I just think the nuke-the-fridge scene is the only scene that screams Classic Indiana Jones. It's the wittiest sequence in the film.

FourDot wrote:

Crystal Skull is better directed than any Star Wars prequel. And I'd watch it again before I ever touch Attack of the Clones again. Crystal Skull is less adventurous, but also (perhaps as a result), much less offensive than the prequels.

Yep.

FourDot wrote:

The Adventures of Tintin, though, wipes the floor with all of that rubbish, thankfully. I'd honestly rather Spielberg make more of those instead of more Indy.

I'm looking forward to TINTIN.

Harmsway wrote:

FourDot wrote:

Crystal Skull is better directed than any Star Wars prequel. And I'd watch it again before I ever touch Attack of the Clones again. Crystal Skull is less adventurous, but also (perhaps as a result), much less offensive than the prequels.

Yep.

I'm probably in a minority of one, but not only do I (much) prefer the STAR WARS prequels to INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, but I also prefer them to the original STAR WARS trilogy (and they certainly look a heck of a lot more stunning on Blu-ray than the OT does).

Watching the Blu-rays recently, I was enthralled by REVENGE OF THE SITH (what incredible special effects!) but found A NEW HOPE incredibly dated and clunky. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK bored me rigid after just a few minutes. Haven't attempted to watch RETURN OF THE JEDI yet.

Harmsway wrote:

I'm looking forward to TINTIN.

Same here. It's been in cinemas over here for a few weeks now, but I haven't bothered to see it yet. Will definitely do so at some point, though.

Quote :

I was enthralled by REVENGE OF THE SITH (what incredible special effects!)

They're decent (though some CGI models date), but Williams's score is by far and away the best thing about it.



It's shoddily written and with the exception of Ian McDiarmid, is full of piss poor acting.

Loomis wrote:

I'm probably in a minority of one, but not only do I (much) prefer the STAR WARS prequels to INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, but I also prefer them to the original STAR WARS trilogy (and they certainly look a heck of a lot more stunning on Blu-ray than the OT does).

Watching the Blu-rays recently, I was enthralled by REVENGE OF THE SITH (what incredible special effects!) but found A NEW HOPE incredibly dated and clunky. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK bored me rigid after just a few minutes. Haven't attempted to watch RETURN OF THE JEDI yet.

You must not be a big fan of number of fairly rudimentary elements that make up what would normally be accepted as a good film, then. Character, pacing, plot, themes, strong visuals... those things.

I don't mean to be rude, but beyond what sparkles and pops on BD and what doesn't (regardless of the fact that if they were untinkered with, the OT films would look amazing in HD, especially Suchizky's work on ESB), the quality of the Star Wars films skews strongly towards the first two films made, and the rest just doesn't shape up in comparison. In any capacity, really. The musical scores, perhaps.

Finished watching Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, though. Don't think I'll be doing that again for a long, long, long time.

And even McDiarmid is just hamming things up to high heaven. Which is entertaining, to be sure, but still.

I think I hate REVENGE OF THE SITH more than any of the other prequels. It just gets everything that it should have so easily gotten right so wrong.

FourDot wrote:

You must not be a big fan of number of fairly rudimentary elements that make up what would normally be accepted as a good film, then. Character, pacing, plot, themes, strong visuals... those things.

I guess not.

FourDot wrote:

I don't mean to be rude, but beyond what sparkles and pops on BD and what doesn't (regardless of the fact that if they were untinkered with, the OT films would look amazing in HD, especially Suchizky's work on ESB), the quality of the Star Wars films skews strongly towards the first two films made, and the rest just doesn't shape up in comparison. In any capacity, really.

Yes, I'm well aware that that's the orthodox view, but it certainly isn't mine, and believe me I've watched all the STAR WARS films a few times over the years and tried to love the ones I'm supposed to love. But in the end I have to go with what I genuinely enjoy.

Oh, well. My favourite James Bond film, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, is generally held (within Bond fandom at least) to be just as poor as the STAR WARS prequels. I guess my tastes are bizarre when it comes to these two franchises.

And Indiana Jones, too, since I know you can't stand RAIDERS.

I like it, but it's pretty damn overrated. LAST CRUSADE's where it's at, though TEMPLE's great too.

Oh well, fair enough. As much as I can't even begin to comprehend those viewpoints, I generally think that repeatedly chastising someone for their personal taste is pretty tiresome and unproductive. And occasionally unpleasant. Especially on the internet. So I'll let it be.


...but disliking Raiders and Empire is JUST PLAIN WRONG. :evil:

Sharky, you gotta get me some of those drugs you're on, man.

(I did watch LAST CRUSADE not too long ago and enjoyed it, but it's not even half the film that RAIDERS is. The action's sluggish in comparison to the first two installments and the visual landscape of the film is very bland compared to the first two installments. Generally entertaining, though, and with a pretty strong climax.)

Sharky wrote:

I like it, but it's pretty damn overrated. LAST CRUSADE's where it's at, though TEMPLE's great too.

When it comes to Dr Jones, give me TEMPLE OF DOOM or give me nothing at all.

Ah yes. TEMPLE OF DOOM. A film that balances the heart, colonial responsibility and humour of CRUSADE with the breakneck action, beautiful compositions, and exoticism of RAIDERS.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky, you gotta get me some of those drugs you're on, man.

(I did watch LAST CRUSADE not too long ago and enjoyed it, but it's not even half the film that RAIDERS is. The action's sluggish in comparison to the first two installments and the visual landscape of the film is very bland compared to the first two installments. Generally entertaining, though, and with a pretty strong climax.)

Yeah, Last Crusade is fun, but it's basically Raiders with less sex, skewed younger and with a buddy comedy dynamic that goes against the grain of what the series is. And Donovan is such a poor man's Belloq. They didn't even put him on the poster.

The Indy films decline in quality with each installment, and the decline grows exponentially.

FourDot wrote:

but it's basically Raiders with less sex.

Those bleeding snakes probably got more skin than Indy in RAIDERS. The makeout scenes between Alison Doody and Ford are more erotic than anything in RAIDERS.

My main gripe with LAST CRUSADE is that Spielberg and co. pulled off a genius casting coup by getting Connery to play Indy's father and then used him in such a way as to completely undercut what should have been the whole point of casting him.

Connery's Jones, Sr. ought to have been just as tough as Indy, just as charismatic, just as much of an alpha male, and with just as much sex appeal, and perhaps even outclassing his son in all those departments. He should have been Bond in NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, basically - dashing, wicked and dangerous. Instead, Henry Jones is presented as a scruffy, bearded old man who as a character is hardly any different to Marcus Brody. Oh, I know that the script has him seducing Alison Doody, punching Nazis and so on, but one doesn't buy any of it the way the character is written and acted. The casting is spot-on, but the actual performance is all wrong.

No, it's very funny performance. Connery's comic timing is bloody perfect. He's basically playing a senile James Bond.

Sharky wrote:

The makeout scenes between Alison Doody and Ford are more erotic than anything in RAIDERS.

True.

Sharky wrote:

He's basically playing a senile James Bond.

Uh.... arguably. But that isn't what I want to see. Or if I do want to see it, I'll turn to A VIEW TO A KILL (which is also a much better film than LAST CRUSADE).

Loomis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

He's basically playing a senile James Bond.

Uh.... arguably. But that isn't what I want to see.

Who cares what you want to see?

Sharky wrote:

Who cares what you want to see? (except you)

Fair point.

Loomis wrote:

My main gripe with LAST CRUSADE is that Spielberg and co. pulled off a genius casting coup by getting Connery to play Indy's father and then used him in such a way as to completely undercut what should have been the whole point of casting him.

Connery's Jones, Sr. ought to have been just as tough as Indy, just as charismatic, just as much of an alpha male, and with just as much sex appeal, and perhaps even outclassing his son in all those departments. He should have been Bond in NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, basically - dashing, wicked and dangerous. Instead, Henry Jones is presented as a scruffy, bearded old man who as a character is hardly any different to Marcus Brody. Oh, I know that the script has him seducing Alison Doody, punching Nazis and so on, but one doesn't buy any of it the way the character is written and acted. The casting is spot-on, but the actual performance is all wrong.

I thought that was the whole point of his casting, which is what makes it genius. Having him play simply Indiana Jones at 60 is too easy and obvious, plus having that dynamic would be no where as interesting and fun as what we got I don't think CRUSADE is all great but Connery's performance is the best thing in the whole film, stealing every scene.

Besides, it's implied Henry Jones Sr. saw action in his day, maybe not to the extent of his son but he has been around a few of his own adventures that involved plenty of artifacts and lots of women. Really love that moment when the Nazi woman tells Indy how wonderful it was and Connery replies with a smile "yes, it was rather wonderful" thinking she was talking to him. Then he looks back and notices her lip-locking his son and then his facial expression changes to "that fucking bitch, I'm over it."

Sharky wrote:

Ah yes. TEMPLE OF DOOM. A film that balances the heart, colonial responsibility and humour of CRUSADE with the breakneck action, beautiful compositions, and exoticism of RAIDERS.

You've changed your tune somewhat there, Sharky.

Sharky wrote:

I really don't get the love for TEMPLE.

.